U.S. Senate: Burning Down the House

Here's the roundup:

The Coleman/Franken deathmatch appears to be falling to the coke-addled comedian rather than the suspicious present-taking former Democrat who celebrated his 20th birthday tripping on acid at Woodstock. Anyway ... looks like some Republicans plan to block Franken from being seated. That should be worth making popcorn for:

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) threatened Friday to filibuster any attempt to seat Democratic Minnesota Senate candidate Al Franken next week. The new National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) chairman said he had not whipped votes in the GOP caucus, but added that he could not imagine any members defecting and seating Franken without a certificate of election. Franken will not have that certificate as long as the election is challenged in the courts — a likely scenario, with Sen. Norm Coleman’s (R-Minn.) legal team already attacking the credibility of the recount process.

Meanwhile, the governor of Colorado is tapping the Denver Superintendent of Schools for a Senate vacancy. Hey, why not, right? At least the guy knows how to work a mimeograph machine without turning his shirt purple. We hope.

Gov. Bill Ritter is shattering conventional wisdom in tapping the popular but politically untested Michael Bennet, superintendent of Denver Public Schools, as the U.S. Senate replacement for Interior Secretary nominee Ken Salazar. The surprising move, expected at a state Capitol news conference Saturday, perplexed many political insiders, most of whom considered Bennet the darkhorse candidate in a field crowded with big name, political veterans like Bennet's old boss, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper.

To some, the reaction wasn't head-scratching. It was jaw-dropping.

"I'm very surprised. He's improbable. He's risky," said pollster Floyd Ciruli, who figured the little-known Bennet would barely be a blip in the polls because he's so unknown. . "He's qualified, and he could be a really, very special and sensational senator. But at least initially, from the political side of it, you are puzzled."

Then we hear solid confirmation that Caroline Kennedy has been crowned anointed exalted enshrined appointed to her Uncle's Senate Seat. Except then we hear she hasn't. Except maybe she has. Oh, who knows, really. This dynastic stuff makes my teeth ache.

Last, and certainly not least, we have Blago and Burris and that whole slow-motion train wreck. Latest news bits: Harry Reid is going to try to do something and fail at it. 'Cause that's how he rolls, yo. Apparently the Illinois Secretary of State's threat to not certify Burris is all hot air, which is too bad.

A spokesman for Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White (D) confirmed to Election Central that White knows he does not truly have the authority to stop the appointment of Roland Burris to the Senate, but he withheld his signature from it earlier today in order to make a statement. But the door does appear to be open to some legal ramifications.

"His feeling is we studied the constitution of Illinois, we looked at the statutes, and there was nothing there that said he had to sign the paperwork," said David Druker, White's press secretary.

"We don't believe he has the authority to hold up the appointment or veto it, to put it that way," Druker added

I'm getting tired just listing all of these mini-dramas. Am I missing any?

Franken stinks. I hope he misses a few months.

Quote:

---

"I'm very surprised. He's improbable. He's risky,"

---

...he was the highest bidder. ~:idea:
You know there had to be some serious quid pro quo going on there. The only difference with Blago is how blatantly ham-handed he was about it.

As for Burris, I'm really looking forward to watching the fireworks. :yes:

Glad to see Big Bad John back on the political scene.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Franken stinks. I hope he misses a few months.

---

Actually, looks like things are breaking his way.

The state Canvassing Board will reconvene Monday to declare which candidate received the most overall votes in the election. Barring court intervention, it will be Franken.

Franken's lead now stands at 225 votes after gaining 176 votes more than Coleman in Saturday's review of the formerly sealed absentee ballots. Franken started the day with a 49-vote advantage.

The 933 absentee ballots were among those rejected by poll workers but later found to be excluded in error. The campaigns eventually agreed they should be added to the recount.

Unless Coleman wins a pending court petition that seeks to add hundreds more ballots to the recount, the counting is done and the Canvassing Board can sign off on the result on Monday or Tuesday. The result cannot be certified for at least one more week under state law.

I know very little about Coleman and Franken, beyond a few public factoids I can toss at either. Both Jews, both spent the majority of their lives as Democrats, both were countercultural hippies back in the day, etc. What's your basis for despising Franken, TuffStuff, beyond him being a Dem? Surely Coleman would qualify as a RINO in your book, yes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Actually, looks like things are breaking his way.

The state Canvassing Board will reconvene Monday to declare which candidate received the most overall votes in the election. Barring court intervention, it will be Franken.

Franken's lead now stands at 225 votes after gaining 176 votes more than Coleman in Saturday's review of the formerly sealed absentee ballots. Franken started the day with a 49-vote advantage.

The 933 absentee ballots were among those rejected by poll workers but later found to be excluded in error. The campaigns eventually agreed they should be added to the recount.

Unless Coleman wins a pending court petition that seeks to add hundreds more ballots to the recount, the counting is done and the Canvassing Board can sign off on the result on Monday or Tuesday. The result cannot be certified for at least one more week under state law.

I know very little about Coleman and Franken, beyond a few public factoids I can toss at either. Both Jews, both spent the majority of their lives as Democrats, both were countercultural hippies back in the day, etc. What's your basis for despising Franken, TuffStuff, beyond him being a Dem? Surely Coleman would qualify as a RINO in your book, yes?

---

Coleman is no RINO. He's pro-life, pro war in Iraq, pro-gun, etc. I can't even really think of a single position that would put him at odds with the party platform, which is weird. Pro-life jews in higher US politics are the most rare thing imaginable. Until Cantor, Coleman was THE ONLY one and around 45 of our Senators and Representatives are Jewish (around 9%). I'm not so sure that I trust Coleman, he seems like an opportunist, but Franken stands agaisnt everything I beleive in AND I hate his personality.

The only consolation is that Minnesotans elected a total lunatic to the Governorship in Ventura. Nobody expects much more than some novelty from that State, so I wouldn't be suprised to see a B comedian and a B WWF wrestler run the state. Maybe they could elect a bunch of actual clowns and mimes to the House? They could all carpool to DC in a tiny car.

I read Frankens book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right a couple of years back. It started off well enough but then it just got tedious basically re-telling the same things. A good few laughs in it though.

Looks like he might have upset a few folks on the right. Not entirely a bad thing. :laugh4:

Pardon me for being cynical, but I am cynical.

So far as I am concerned every race in every election is subject to serious tampering.

Now I don’t really expect a Republican to win in Minnesota, regardless of the vote.

Maybe it is a bit like the previous Governor’s Election in Washington, count the votes till the Dems win. This time they avoided the recount by frontloading the fraud.

I believe people deserve the government they elect, but the Parties are choosing for us and the whole system need an overhaul.

Remember that saying…No matter how you vote today, when you die, you’re a Democrat…

It doesn’t matter which party or if both parties do it, it needs to be fixed or just forget about elections.

I wouldn’t trust a dogcatchers election these days.
:oops:
:focus:
:gah2:

someone voted for that guy?:smash::inquisitive:

Wow, that wiki RINO article sickens me. I've never seen a bigger example of partisan MaCarthyism and everything else that is wrong with our system.

We deserve Senator Franken.

There are few more ardent and vocal supporters of the left-fringe of the Democrat party to be found. This one, at least, had the courage to run for office. Puts him ahead of Soros and others in my estimate.

Politics is a tough game, especially at the national level -- and this time Franken and company came out on top. Happens.

you know when i read the title to this thread i thought that the senate actually burned down the place. o well. better luck next time.

Sorry hooahguy, it was just a lame reference to an old song.

-edit-

And now this from Reuters ...

Democrat Al Franken will be declared the winner of the tight U.S. Senate contest in Minnesota, emerging from a ballot recount with a slim margin over Republican Norm Coleman, state officials said on Sunday. But Coleman, the incumbent, has asked Minnesota's supreme court to require that a few hundred additional absentee ballots be included in the recount -- and he could then ask the court to investigate the contest all over again.

"At the moment, Franken has a 225-vote lead," after the weekend counting of what were deemed the last uncounted absentee ballots, said Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, a Democrat who oversaw the process.

Ritchie said unless the supreme court acts on Coleman's request and orders more ballots to be counted, he will reconvene the state's Canvassing Board at 2:30 p.m. CST (2030 GMT) on Monday to certify Franken as the winner of the November 4 contest.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v.../Alfranken.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Glad to see Big Bad John back on the political scene.

---

That's hysterical! :laugh4:

Looks like Burris intends to storm the doors of the Senate Chamber. He's gonna need ninjas. Lots and lots of ninjas.

Roland Burris touches down in Washington Monday afternoon, setting up a high-stakes showdown with Senate Democrats later this week.

Burris – traveling frugally — leaves Chicago's Midway Airport at 3 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on Southwest Airlines and is scheduled to arrive at Baltimore-Washington International Airport at 4:45 p.m., according to details released by his aides.

A defiant Burris told reporters in Chicago before his flight that he plans to tell Reid that "I'm here to take my seat."

It seems that Pelosi is busy buying matches

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.

MM, that article is hilarious. I think it's gone past hyperventilating and passed out on the sidewalk. Note that any article which cannot used "Democrat" versus "Democratic" correctly instantly loses credibility points, since the whole linguistic tic of never using "Democratic" is a holdout of the die-hard wingnuts.

Samples from the article: "Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian ... exposes a tyrannical Democrat leadership ..." And all this over a rule change? Do we have any notion of how the Republicans changed the rules when they had their 2000-2006 joyride? But note that the author of that article doesn't mention the current President or the recent Congresses, just goes back to the glory days of Gingrich.

For crikey's sake, don't reprint news releases from partisan mouthpieces. Find a semi-respectable source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

For crikey's sake, don't reprint news releases from partisan mouthpieces. Find a semi-respectable source.

---

:laugh4: Pot, please welcome kettle to the Backroom. :medievalcheers:

Vladimir, please feel free to please feel free to point out where I have cited leftwing mouthpieces, etc., etc., etc. And no, CNN, The Economist and Politico don't count toward your final score.

MM was posting from a purely partisan source that makes no pretension of being anything else. But by pointing this out, and asking him to cite a mainstream source, I'm a leftist shill? You need to have a long, manly hug with TuffStuff.

I find it fascinating that whenever I offer even the mildest corrective on the subject, I have rightwing nutjobs leaping up and screaming bias as though that were some sort of argument.

Do you have anything of substance to add to this subject, Vladimir, or did you just drop by to declare victory before scuttling away?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Vladimir, please feel free to please feel free to point out where I have cited leftwing mouthpieces, etc., etc., etc. And no, CNN, The Economist and Politico don't count toward your final score.

MM was posting from a purely partisan source that makes no pretension of being anything else. But by pointing this out, and asking him to cite a mainstream source, I'm a leftist shill? You need to have a long, manly hug with TuffStuff.

I find it fascinating that whenever I offer even the mildest corrective on the subject, I have rightwing nutjobs leaping up and screaming bias as though that were some sort of argument.

Do you have anything of substance to add to this subject, Vladimir, or did you just drop by to declare victory before scuttling away?

---

It is possible to be a leftist shill and still attempt fairness in your posts. I'm a conservative shill who tends to support the G.O.P. in pretty much everything, but I won't cheat and don't support conservatives who cheat... often.

Example. The Giants and the Patriots are playing a game. Some players would cheat on both teams in order for their own team to win. Other players desperately want their team to win, but would not compromise their own factual legitimacy to make it happen. Nobody on either team has business making the play calls.

You're like the relatively objective cornerback for the Giants wearing pinstripes to the game and hoping people confuse you with the ref.

I don't beleive that you are a bad or unfair guy, but your credibility as a mediator has been shot to hell regarding the Election of 2008. That is all we are saying. But so is mine, really.

By definition of supporting a "party" whether political or otherwise we are partisan. THere is nothing wrong with it. Everyone is partisan in some things.

So by your thinking, TuffStuff, it's entirely immaterial whether I try to post reliable information or not, correct? 'Cause I picked a side in the '08 election cycle, and that means that anything I say, by definition, is on a par with the most insane mouthings from Daily Kos or MoveOn.org.

This is what I don't understand. Seamus, for example, tilts to the right, but he goes out of his way to find good information and post worthwhile stuff. But I don't see any Dems or lefties on this board jumping down his throat because he's got a viewpoint. Now, I may not live up to the exceptional level of posting quality that Seamus demonstrates, but I'm probably funnier, and I make an effort to link/source good, credible information.

That makes me a football player attempting to fool you into thinking I'm the ref? Really?

I think, rather, that you and Vladimir are attempting to create a false equivalence where everyone is a partisan shill, and therefore there's no functional difference between a post in the comments section of Michelle Malkin and a published article in the Christian Science Monitor. It's a way to not only level the playing field but destroy the very concept of a "playing field," since games with rules have a well-established liberal bias.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Vladimir, please feel free to please feel free to point out where I have cited leftwing mouthpieces, etc., etc., etc. And no, CNN, The Economist and Politico don't count toward your final score.

MM was posting from a purely partisan source that makes no pretension of being anything else. But by pointing this out, and asking him to cite a mainstream source, I'm a leftist shill? You need to have a long, manly hug with TuffStuff.

I find it fascinating that whenever I offer even the mildest corrective on the subject, I have rightwing nutjobs leaping up and screaming bias as though that were some sort of argument.

Do you have anything of substance to add to this subject, Vladimir, or did you just drop by to declare victory before scuttling away?

---

Victory is mine!

Blast!

Another drive-by impailing.

Despite how much you would like to believe it, I don't have a cuddly little Lemur folder where I document all your .org contributions. But if I did, I'm sure there would *never* eeever, be anything that could be perceived as partisan.

Hell, your post in itself is reactionary and generally speaking are some of the most subjective and reactionary here (but never dull)! But that's cool, because like I indicated, this is the Backroom. :duel:

Roland Burris gets body-blocked at the U.S. Senate door. I guess it had to happen.

Burris made his way to the office of Nancy Erickson, the secretary of the Senate, to whom he presented his credentials, only to have her reject them. Afterward, the aspiring legislator stood in the rain outside and declared, “Members of the media, my name is Roland Burris, the junior senator from the State of Illinois.”

Not yet, he isn’t. The problem for Mr. Burris, of course, is that he was named to the seat by the embattled Illinois governor, Rod R. Blagojevich. Ms. Erickson had already said that the appointment letter forwarded by the governor’s office did not comply with Rule II of the Senate’s standing rules, which requires signatures of both the governor and the secretary of state.

Looks like DevDave got his wish. ~D

Blagojevich truly has been the best Christmas present ever. Hopefully he sticks it out and we get to see an impeachment. I'm sure he can leak lots of goodies on members of the state legislature. That would be high comedy. :yes:

... aaaaand now the Dems say Burris can join the Senate. What a complete waste of time this has been.

Is it just me, or does Harry Reid strike you as one of the most ineffective political leaders in the last 500 years? This dude does not understand arm-twisting, backroom threatening, pol bribing or just generally getting-his-way-ing. Reid lacks the spine and persistence of former Senate Majority Leaders such as Bill Frist, Tom Daschle or Trent Lott. The descriptors that come to mind for Reid are "limp," "flaccid," "empty" and "impotent."

After a private 45-minute meeting with the former Illinois state attorney general, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, and Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, said that they were open to recognizing Mr. Burris’s appointment as long as he met several conditions.

They said that Mr. Burris, whose appointment was challenged because of the federal corruption inquiry surrounding Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich, has to win the signature of the Illinois secretary of state and persuade a state legislative committee considering Mr. Blagojevich’s impeachment that there was nothing untoward about his selection.

Blago ran rings around the Washington Dems. You have to kind of admire his moxie, as well as the dead opossum on his head.

George Bush, low approval ratings, lame duck status, and all, has run rings around Reid and the Washington Dems. Completely spineless. So don't be giving Blago too much credit. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

...Is it just me, or does Harry Reid strike you as one of the most ineffective political leaders in the last 500 years? This dude does not understand arm-twisting, backroom threatening, pol bribing or just generally getting-his-way-ing. Reid lacks the spine and persistence of former Senate Majority Leaders such as Bill Frist, Tom Daschle or Trent Lott. The descriptors that come to mind for Reid are "limp," "flaccid," "empty" and "impotent."

---

They left out 'arrogant' and 'immature'. Reid may look like an elder statesman but he acts like a histrionic brat who throws a tantrum when he doesn't get his way.

Quote:

---

Blago ran rings around the Washington Dems. You have to kind of admire his moxie, as well as the dead opossum on his head.

---

I suppose, but that would imply he's schooled in the Machivellan Method and thus in possession of more than a modicum of gray matter. Given that his current political woes were caused by similarly ballsy and cavalier decisions I'm inclined to think he's a mediocre minded egomaniac who blindly follows his id. Then again maybe I'm wrong, maybe a modicum of gray matter isn't required to run circles around the pack of proverbial rocket scientists currently running Washington.

I think modern science has yet to determine exactly what that thing is on the top of his head. It looks like a mutagenic manifestation of some follicular horror you'd find in a high school yearbook from the mid-70s...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

It seems that Pelosi is busy buying matches

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.

---

For a less "florid" discussion of the changes, consider this.

These changes will, at the discretion of the House leadership, limit GOP ability to offer competing leglislation and will prevent the forced shuffling of committee chairs that would have occurred at/neaer the end of Obama's first term. This is a solidification of the power of the majority to control legislation in the HofR.

It is reflective of the fact that the Dems WON. When you win a larger majority, you win the right to promote/enforce your agenda -- within Constitutional constraints -- on the minority. The GOP changed rules when it had power, and the Dems didn't like some of those changes. Its a part of the game.

Wonkette has a typically amusing summary of the Burris saga:

Burris’s brief but successful campaign was a colorful circus of race-baiting, publicity stunts, and general knavery that embarrassed everyone. But! The one thing is was not was illegal, so in the end everybody who had so firmly been against bowing to the Blagojevich Taint had to relent.

Alas, all of Roland Burris’s new Senate colleagues think he is a pathetic clown who stooped to an appointment that no decent Democrat would accept, and he is just a junior senator anyway so it’s not like he’ll be in line for any tasty committee chairmanships or anything. Basically he is now the most powerless senator in America, and the most reviled.

Meanwhile, the Minority Whip is warning Dems that they won't seat Franken for at least another month.

In an unusual move, Kyl went to the Senate floor this morning to lay out all the reasons why the Minnesota Senate election remains unresolved, and he listed Sen. Norm Coleman’s arguments before the Minnesota courts. Coleman’s election lawsuit contends there are newly discovered ballots, missing ballots, wrongly rejected absentee ballots and double counting of votes.

“Clearly there’s something wrong here and it has to be resolved by court,” Kyl said. “There are no stipulations for when proceedings must be completed. Estimations are that it could take a month or more.”

Lastly, there's a whole string of Republican Senators announcing retirement, opening up seats that were thought to be safe. Three official retirements so far.

Quote:

---

4) Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), 67
Hutchison recently announced the formation of a gubernatorial campaign exploratory committee. If Hutchison is to seriously challenge sitting Republican Governor Rick Perry, she would ostensibly have to resign her Senate seat so that she could campaign full time (and not be attacked by her gubernatorial opposition for leaving Texas with only one Senator - and, with that Senator being John Cornyn, she could be attacked for leaving Texas without any real Senate representation). With Texas having a relatively early filing period, we could expect a Hutchison resignation before the end of 2009 if she is truly serious about a 2010 gubernatorial bid, and all indications are that she is.

---

LOL:laugh4: But it's Big Bad john.

Strike, you may tower over other men the way a great redwood tree looms over mere oaks, but even you don't have Blagojevich Balls.

Contains some bad language, but is very funny.

ahahahahahhaha. No one cares because you're a chump! ahahahahahhaahah.

Here you are sir. You're a disgrace to Illinois....Maybe not to Illinois but if you were the governor of any other state.

Well, let's just have a look at what Pelosi herself had to say:
In 2004;
Pelosi Seeks House Minority 'Bill of Rights'

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

House Democrats’ anger at heavy-handed Republican tactics reached a new level yesterday, with the chamber’s top Democrat asking the House speaker to embrace a “Bill of Rights” for the minority, regardless which party it is.
...
Pelosi’s document, which she vows to honor if Democrats regain the majority, says: “Too often, incivility and the heavy hand of the majority” have silenced Democrats and choked off “thoughtful debate.” She called on the majority to let the minority offer meaningful amendments and substitutes to important bills; to limit roll-call votes to the normal 15 minutes rather than keeping them open to round up needed votes; and to let all appointees to House-Senate conference committees participate in meetings and decisions.

“When we are shut out, they are shutting out the great diversity of America,” Pelosi said in an interview. “We want a return to civility; we want to set a higher standard.”
...
Democrats and several analysts say recommital votes are largely meaningless. Hastert’s leadership team portrays them as “procedural votes” rather than matters of policy, and unwritten parliamentary rules make it essentially treasonous for lawmakers to vote against their party’s leadership on procedural matters.

The inevitable party-line vote that keeps Democrats from recommitting a Republican bill “is the whole ballgame,” Ornstein said, because it prevents Democrats from having a debate and a vote on the substance of their alternative proposals.

And in 2008;
House rule changes squander good will:
Pelosi package angers GOP

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The spirit of bipartisan cooperation didn’t survive the first day of the 111th Congress as House Democrats pushed through a package of rule changes Tuesday that the furious Republican minority said trampled their traditional rights to affect legislation.
...
The most contentious rule change places new restrictions on motions to “recommit” a bill for new amendments to the committee that approved it. In practice, that motion often meant a lengthy or even permanent delay in passing the measure. Motions to recommit would still be possible, but the new rules allow the full House to reconsider the bill almost instantaneously.
...
Because of the special rules regarding budgetary legislation, Republicans argued that the new restrictions on motions to recommit will hobble their ability to challenge tax increases that are included in larger, “must-pass” bills.

Unlike in the Senate, where the threat of a filibuster gives the minority strong bargaining leverage, the minority party in the House has relatively few tools to challenge the majority’s will. Mr. Dreier noted that the recommit motion had been in place for 100 years, and he rejected Democratic claims that the new rules were a minor tweak to an obscure parliamentary proceeding.

In Congress, he said, “process is substance.”

Ah, hypocrisy - where would we be without it? (And yes, I am well aware it happens in both parties, so spare me the 'but the GOP did this' whining.)

CR

What the heck?

Caroline Kennedy has withdrawn from consideration for the vacant Senate seat in New York, according to a person told of her decision. [...]

Ms. Kennedy’s decision comes nearly two months after she, along with several members of Congress and leading political officials, began auditioning to replace Mrs. Clinton in the coveted position. She attracted relentless attention and was viewed by many as the most likely choice for Mr. Paterson, given her national stature and ties to the incoming Obama administration.

“We’re back to Square 1 again,” said Douglas A. Muzzio, a professor of public affairs at Baruch College. “It’s like Chutes and Ladders — we keep climbing and then we’re down the chute again.”

Paterson has appointed an upstate NRA-backed conservative Dem congresswoman!

Quote:

---

ALBANY - Gov. Paterson, defying the liberal wing of his Democratic Party, has chosen little-known, NRA-backed, upstate Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand to succeed Hillary Rodham Clinton as New York's junior senator, it was learned last night.

The surprising - and, for many Democrats shocking - decision to pick the conservative Gillibrand, 42, from Hudson in Columbia County, was disclosed by the governor in calls to party officials and some members of the state's congressional delegation, many of whom said they were unhappy with the selection, sources said.

---

Hahaha! This is great! So much better than Andrew "End Run Around the Constitution" Cuomo!

CR

I'm just glad it's not another Kennedy. Down with dynasties!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Paterson has appointed an upstate NRA-backed conservative Dem congresswoman!



Hahaha! This is great! So much better than Andrew "End Run Around the Constitution" Cuomo!

CR

---

I'm psyched. That was clearly a responsible and relatively middle ground appointment. If she doesn't turn out to be a psycho hose-beast, I might vote for her just to keep her in action. No more Hillary and her ilk. I've always even liked Chuck Schumer - honorable people who care about New York and have some talent.

Clinton is a monster. Kennedy is an entitled dud.

Dynasties and Royalty can create great heirs and heroes, but they also have more instances of inbreeding. JFK seemed like a dynastic talent, George H W Bush had a special knack for foreign policy, etc.
Filter them out mercilessly and maybe you'll find one or two worth voting for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I'm psyched. That was clearly a responsible and relatively middle ground appointment. If she doesn't turn out to be a psycho hose-beast, I might vote for her just to keep her in action. No more Hillary and her ilk. I've always even liked Chuck Schumer - honorable people who care about New York and have some talent.

Clinton is a monster. Kennedy is an entitled dud.

Dynasties and Royalty can create great heirs and heroes, but they also have more instances of inbreeding. JFK seemed like a dynastic talent, George H W Bush had a special knack for foreign policy, etc.
Filter them out mercilessly and maybe you'll find one or two worth voting for.

---

I'm a bit more cynical than you with this. Paterson is looking to win a gubernatorial election not too long from now. To do so, he needs upstate votes and not just NYC & Albany. This is a good tool for doing that -- picks off middle-of-the-road types for him. Moreover, I think Cuomo has his sights set on the same office, though maybe a term or two further down the road.

Clinton is not a monster, just amoral -- not that this makes me all "warm and fuzzy" towards her. Schlossberg would have been a big crowd pleaser among the Dems, though her whole first few years would have to have been pure OJT. At least this nominee can be seen as an experienced legislatrix.

As to Schumer, I tend to loathe his policy stances on 90% of the issues -- but I will admit that he does keep the interestes of NY in mind (some Senators lose their path more thoroughly).

The ship is sinking! Commence firing!

Gov Paterson unloads on Kennedy.

According to sources, at least - but why am I not surprised at this evaluation of Kennedy?

CR

Lots of news today, let's see, Blago said he considered Oprah, and he's going on a media blitz tour while the Illinois Senate indicts him. How does he walk with balls that big?

Also, a New Yorker writer produces one of their 10,000 word articles about Caroline Kennedy. It's a long, tedious read, redeemed by the a few choice quotes:

Caroline Kennedy’s friends are always saying how normal she is, and it appears that they are right. Normal people do not run for the Senate. Normal people with lots of money and families that they like tend to want to enjoy the money and the families. They do not spend their winters on the phone grovelling for support, or their summers at obscure state fairs ingesting disagreeable and fattening local food. [...]

Paterson has appointed Kirsten Gillibrand, a second-term congresswoman from Hudson, near Albany. “Paterson has no comprehension of upstate New York, absolutely none, and has chosen someone better at representing cows than people,” Lawrence O’Donnell says. “What you have is the daughter of a lobbyist, instead of the daughter of a former President or the son of a former governor. This is the hack world producing the hack result that the hacks are happy with.”

-edit-

Blago on The View, part 1 and part 2.

Quote:

---

Paterson has appointed Kirsten Gillibrand, a second-term congresswoman from Hudson, near Albany. “Paterson has no comprehension of upstate New York, absolutely none, and has chosen someone better at representing cows than people,” Lawrence O’Donnell says. “What you have is the daughter of a lobbyist, instead of the daughter of a former President or the son of a former governor. This is the hack world producing the hack result that the hacks are happy with.”

---

That alone leads me to think it was a decent choice. If this blowhard hates her so much, she can't be all bad. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Paterson has appointed Kirsten Gillibrand, a second-term congresswoman from Hudson, near Albany. “Paterson has no comprehension of upstate New York, absolutely none, and has chosen someone better at representing cows than people,” Lawrence O’Donnell says. “What you have is the daughter of a lobbyist, instead of the daughter of a former President or the son of a former governor. This is the hack world producing the hack result that the hacks are happy with.”[/indent]

---

Memo from the 21st century, pal:
We no longer select rulers by dynasty. You better try real hard to get your tiny, rigid brain around that fact.

And yes, Blago has some massive cojones. But it's all for nothing.

CR

I'd just like to know what's so bad about representing cows?

-edit-

Meanwhile, the Franken-Coleman trial began this afternoon. I'm sure it's all terribly exciting, although Coleman has kind of shown his hand by taking a lobbyist job already.

Guv Patterson misplayed this Senate appointment process big time. Putting the boots to Kennedy after she bowed out was unnecessary, politically stupid, and shows a lack of class. Whatever one's opinion of her, she has Obama's ear & gratitude for the Kennedy Dynasty backing during the nomination battle with Clinton. Every state in the Union is looking for a handout/bailout/legislative policy favor from the White House...how does dissing her help the Guv's chances getting Federal help for New York State? Might be an unreturned phone call or two in his future. He also managed to piss off many of his Dem. party members for jumping Gillibrand ahead of quite a few senior party hacks, especially Cuomo, who's State Attorney Generals post is highly coveted by others if he's selected as Senator. His State budget proposal has received very little support from his own party. The special legislative session he called in late November to cut additional spending was ignored by his own party, with a majority in both the Assembly & Senate no less. They basically thumbed their collective noses, collected their per diem & had a nice $200K dinner banquet on the taxpayer. Nothing useful was accomplished.

Patterson looks weak, indecisive, dithering, in way over his head. I'm predicting he will finish this term and get the boot from his own party. I hope Gillibrand sticks just because it pisses off the Downstate Banana Republic that NYS government has become. :whip:

little offtopic, but I read a joke last night.

"If the opposite of Pro is Con...
Then what's the opposite of Progress?"

Patterson IS in over his head and unprepared for the job. I think that he will bow out to Cuomo in the next election to make it tougher on Giuliani.

I think that a female Democratic Congresswoman that wins 58% of a Republican stronghold, seems to understand finance, speaks and writes Chinese (Mandarin), and has a gifted public persona was an eminently smart decision. She may be one of the few positive things that Patterson will leave us with.

EDIT: It seems, as expected that she is pretty hard left on abortion and has just flip-flopped on Gay issues, affirming her support for gay marriage to a prominent leader. Oh well. You wonder what a politicians true feelings are - did they support gay marriage the whole time and just vote with their local constituency or are they just voting with their constituency when they hit state-wide office? I bet a little bit of both - or they just don't care one way or another and wan't to save the political points for their core personal issues.

Gillibrand, from a purely political standpoint, was really quite a poor decision. She will no doubt be fighting an incredibly tough primary battle against much more progressive Democrats (Who stand a decent chance of winning the primary in New York). That means the eventual Democratic winner will have to spend a lot of very important money and time fighting against each other while the Republicans can get themselves sorted out much more easily (Though I hear the talent pool in New York is incredibly thin...).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Memo from the 21st century, pal:
We no longer select rulers by dynasty. You better try real hard to get your tiny, rigid brain around that fact.

And yes, Blago has some massive cojones. But it's all for nothing.

CR

---

You just keep naming them as such... ~;p

Obama II vs Mccain III
Bush II vs Kerry
Bush II vs Gore II
Clinton III (well, before the name change) vs Dole

It was slightly better before that though, but the senate seems to have a simular naming habit.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Yeah, yeah got a new hobby pointing that out after I realized how commmon that is in the US

Audio and transcripts of Blago being naughty. Enjoy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I'm just glad it's not another Kennedy. Down with dynasties!

---

Bah!

Admit it, you envy our dynastic ways! You're just jealous because our dynasties are proper inbreds, unlike yours!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Looks like DevDave got his wish. ~D

Blagojevich truly has been the best Christmas present ever. Hopefully he sticks it out and we get to see an impeachment. I'm sure he can leak lots of goodies on members of the state legislature. That would be high comedy. :yes:

---

Thank you for the recognition my good fellow. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Bah!

Admit it, you envy our dynastic ways! You're just jealous because our dynasties are proper inbreds, unlike yours!

---

American ones just act like inbreds.

Today is a great day for lizard people.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...n-franken2.jpg

A three-judge panel ruled that as many as 4,790 rejected absentee ballots can be considered for inclusion in the Minnesota Senate recount, adding a new wrinkle to the long-lasting Minnesota Senate recount between Coleman and Al Franken.

The court ruling is a victory for Coleman’s camp, which has been trying to get thousands of additional ballots counted in its efforts to overturn Franken’s 225-vote lead over Coleman.

The inclusion of these absentee ballots is at the center of the Coleman’s camp’s legal challenge. [...]

So only a subset of the 4,700 absentee ballots -- identified by the Coleman camp -- will be added to the count. The inclusion of additional ballots could be enough to shrink Franken’s lead, but unless most of them end up being included, it would still be difficult for Coleman to overturn his 225-vote deficit.

More bad news for Coleman. But then, he took a lobbying job already, so I guess he kind of knew this wasn't going to go his way.

The judges in Minnesota's U.S. Senate trial say Republican Norm Coleman has not yet shown a widespread problem with absentee voters being denied the right to vote.

In a ruling Friday, the three-judge panel says rejected absentee ballots in 12 of 19 categories should not be counted in the Senate race. That's a setback for Coleman, who wanted to count ballots in all but three categories.

Coleman is trying to undo Democrat Al Franken's 225-vote lead by arguing that thousands of rejected absentee ballots should be counted. But the order from the judges will limit the number of ballots to be reviewed for counting.

Wut a way to run a railroad.

I don't understand why Coleman is fighting so hard for this seat. You win once, take the pension, then make your millions as a lobbyist or a "journalist". Jeeze, you'd think these guys would have this figured out by now...

It's nice to see Roland Burris and, by extension, Blago are finding ways to keep in the news.

It turns out that Burris may have perjured himself when he was asked if anyone tied to Blagojevich had contacted him about his appointment. Apparently, Burris now remembers that someone did contact him- It was Blago's brother and he wanted money. :smash:

Quote:

---

Raising fresh questions about his appointment to Congress, Sen. Roland Burris admitted in a document released Saturday that former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's brother asked him for campaign fundraising help before the governor named Burris as Illinois' junior senator.

The disclosure reflects a major omission from Burris' testimony in January when an Illinois House impeachment committee specifically asked if he had ever spoken to Robert Blagojevich or other aides to the now-deposed governor about the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama.

State Rep. Jim Durkin, the impeachment committee's ranking Republican, told The Associated Press that he and House Republican Leader Tom Cross will ask Sunday for an outside investigation into whether Burris perjured himself.

---

You can't make this stuff up....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Today is a great day for lizard people.

A three-judge panel ruled that as many as 4,790 rejected absentee ballots can be considered for inclusion in the Minnesota Senate recount, adding a new wrinkle to the long-lasting Minnesota Senate recount between Coleman and Al Franken.

The court ruling is a victory for Coleman’s camp, which has been trying to get thousands of additional ballots counted in its efforts to overturn Franken’s 225-vote lead over Coleman.

The inclusion of these absentee ballots is at the center of the Coleman’s camp’s legal challenge. [...]

So only a subset of the 4,700 absentee ballots -- identified by the Coleman camp -- will be added to the count. The inclusion of additional ballots could be enough to shrink Franken’s lead, but unless most of them end up being included, it would still be difficult for Coleman to overturn his 225-vote deficit.

---

Sammy Sleestack will have his day in court! The Lizard People have spoken!

https://img167.imageshack.us/img167/...estack1hk1.jpg
https://img167.imageshack.us/img167/...jpg/1/w400.png

Now Coleman suggests a do-over election. If Franken agreed, who would foot the bill for another election? Does this sound workable or advisable to anyone?

[Coleman said] "Yeah, you know some folks are now talking about simply saying run it again, just run it again."

"Have another statewide election?" Wilkow asked.

Coleman responded: "You know the St. Paul Pioneer Press is...one of the second largest papers in the state, last week [they] said we're never going to figure this out, just run it again. So you start hearing that. Ultimately the court has to make a determination, can they confirm, can they certify who got the most legally cast votes?"

I think before another election some pretty stringent post election rules would have to be laid down before anyone would agree. It might invigorate whole new groups of people to get out and vote because they are tired of the circus, it might also invigorate a whole new group of con artists who try to think of ways to DQ ballots or cry discrimination at the polls.

I bet if they did a do-over one of the candidates would win by a very large margin, not sure who, but it would effectively end the others career. In fact, I hope that happens, because theres nothing I enjoy better than watching a politicians career end.

Senator Bunning (R-KY) threatens to quit if GOP gives him a hard time. Since Kentucky has a Dem Governor, this would put the Dems into the 60-seat supermajority that nobody thought they would ever get. Freaky.

Already in conflict with his party’s leaders, Sen. Jim Bunning has reportedly said privately that if he is hindered in raising money for his re-election campaign he is ready with a response that would be politically devastating for Senate Republicans: his resignation. [...]

The implication, they said, was that Bunning would allow Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, a Democrat, to appoint his replacement — a move that could give Democrats the 60 votes they need to block Republican filibusters in the Senate.

“I would get the last laugh. Don’t forget Kentucky has a Democrat governor,” one of the sources quoted Bunning as saying.

“The only logical extension of that comment is, ‘(Make me mad) … enough and I’ll resign, and then you’ve got 60 Democrats,’ ” said another source who was present at the event.

That was the clear message Bunning was sending, said a third source who heard the senator’s remarks at the fundraiser, which attracted about 15 people.

Wow...

I'm not sure what surprises me more: that anybody would threaten their party with such a maneuver, or that Kentucky has a Democratic governor.

Oh come on dude, not all democrats are liberal. I'd be willing to bet that Kentucky probably is like Oklahoma and is majority democrat registered voters, with conservative voting tendencies. If the guvnah wants to be re-elected he would stick with the wishes of his constituents.

I really think this guys threat is a bluff, and even if its not people are so damned paranoid.....didn't happen in new york city like the paranoids thought it would, eh? I think some Republicans wanted Caroline Kennedy to get the seat so they could have someone else to vilify, and be closer to a fillibuster-proof dem majority, that way everything that happens can be blamed soley on the dems.

It used to be about having a majority. Now its all about a fillibuster proof majoruty. It's really sad that federal level offices have degraded into this wrangling. I can't wait for Clancey-esq poisonings and call girl scandals to begin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Senator Bunning (R-KY) threatens to quit if GOP gives him a hard time. Since Kentucky has a Dem Governor, this would put the Dems into the 60-seat supermajority that nobody thought they would ever get.

---

My response: Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

If he does opt out and the Dems get their 60, we would finally see bipartisanship calls stop. The Dems are not afraid to KATN when they have power.

It's official, Norm Coleman has asked for a do-over. I'm not convinced that Minnesota really needs two Senators. They seem to be managing with just one ...

For more than a month, Norm Coleman stressed flaws in Minnesota's election system. And on Monday, Coleman lawyer Jim Langdon wrote the three-judge panel to suggest the problems are so serious they may not be able to declare a winner.

"Some courts have held that when the number of illegal votes exceeds the margin between the candidates—and it cannot be determined for which candidate those illegal votes were cast—the most appropriate remedy is to set aside the election," Langdon wrote in a letter to the court.

A "do-over?" Shades of the 3rd-grade playground....sounds about the right level.

Quote:

---

Some courts have held that when the number of illegal votes exceeds the margin between the candidates—and it cannot be determined for which candidate those illegal votes were cast—the most appropriate remedy is to set aside the election," Langdon wrote in a letter to the court.

---

Actually I think that's reasonable, assuming that "illegal votes" includes ballots who weren't counted because of technicalities. What kind of mandate are we talking about when you win by a couple of votes whereas a butload of them were rejected?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

A "do-over?" Shades of the 3rd-grade playground....sounds about the right level.

---

Indeed...

I thought we had agreed upon "no takesy-backsies". :inquisitive:

I'm not sure when, but at some point this stopped being funny ...

Former Sen. Norm Coleman is still considering taking his election lawsuit to federal court if he’s unsuccessful in reversing Al Franken’s 225-vote lead in the Minnesota Senate recount. [...] “I’m not ruling out anything,” Coleman said. “I think Minnesotans deserve to know each and every vote was counted fairly — that there’s a uniform standard. If that can be done at a trial level, that’s great. If it takes an appellate level to do that, then, you know, we have to look at that. But I’m not looking forward. I’m looking at where we’re at today, and right now, today, we’re waiting.”

Coleman’s basic argument in the recount case is that a slew of absentee votes have not been counted and other ballots were double counted. Some of the court’s early rulings during the seven-week trial have led many legal experts to believe that Coleman’s chances of winning at the trial level are slim.

After the lunch with Coleman, Sen. John Cornyn, head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said he would expect the court challenge to go on for a while — potentially years.

“I know it seems it’s gone on for a long time already, but this could go on for a long time,” Cornyn said. “Appeals take months, if not years, sometimes.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by politico, quoting Coleman

"... It’s pretty surreal,” he said. “Here we are in the end of March, moving into April, not done yet.”

---

Yeah. Are the good people of the State of Minnesota better served by delaying the seating of their 2nd Senator, in order to expose and fix their apparently disconnected electoral system? Or better served to seat someone now, so they're adequately represented, and fix their system later?

On the bright side: Minnesotans are saving half the $$$ they would have spent on Senatorial perq's for the second guy. :)

Kukri, if this goes to the Supremes there's a fairly recent precedent ...

It's good that our elected Senators are so mature and dignified.

Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) was on the receiving end of this one, after telling Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), "Oh, you are good."

"Well, your wife said the same thing," Sen. Grassley responded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

It's good that our elected Senators are so mature and dignified.

Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) was on the receiving end of this one, after telling Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), "Oh, you are good."

"Well, your wife said the same thing," Sen. Grassley responded.

---

:wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Franken stinks. I hope he misses a few months.

---

I'm an independent giving Obama a chance.... I still think it's actually a good thing that neither Coleman or Franken has the seat.

Neither one of them impress me. Both losers in my opinion.

Looks like some financial shenanigans are emerging about Coleman. Not that this should hurt his plan for years-long litigation over the Senate seat; he can continue that from prison if need be.

The former finance chief of a Texas company controlled by Nasser Kazeminy, a close friend of former Sen. Norm Coleman, said in a deposition last week that Kazeminy ordered $100,000 in fees be paid to a Minneapolis insurance agency where Coleman's wife was employed.

B.J. Thomas, who was chief financial officer of Deep Marine Technology Inc., said that $75,000 of that sum was paid to Hays Companies even though he saw no evidence of Deep Marine receiving any consulting services from Hays. [...]

Doug Kelley, Norm Coleman's attorney, said Wednesday that no matter how much money Deep Marine paid to Hays, "I can assure you that not a penny found its way to Laurie Coleman or Senator Norm Coleman. Period. End of story.''

Hays' attorney, Doug Peterson, said he hadn't seen the transcript of Thomas' deposition and couldn't comment. Hays hasn't disputed that it received $75,000 under a consulting contract with Deep Marine. But the company has previously insisted none of the money went to the Colemans.

Quote:

---

B.J. Thomas, who was chief financial officer of Deep Marine Technology Inc., said that $75,000 of that sum was paid to Hays Companies even though he saw no evidence of Deep Marine receiving any consulting services from Hays. [...]

---

Hooked On A Feelin' I guess that singing career didn't pan out after "Raindrops Keep Fallin' on My Head".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Looks like some financial shenanigans are emerging about Coleman. Not that this should hurt his plan for years-long litigation over the Senate seat; he can continue that from prison if need be.

---

I don't know for sure, Lemur, but you may have hit upon an excellent solution for Congress in general. Elect whichever thief you want, but then jail them before than can take office and avail themselves of immunity while in session. If we can incarcerate enough of them, maybe we can really limit the ongoing damage.

Speaking of which, Rep. John Murtha (D) is refreshingly honest: "If I'm corrupt, it's because I take care of my district."

-edit-

Another update from the no-longer-funny debacle in Minnesota:

Texas Sen. John Cornyn is threatening “World War III” if Democrats try to seat Al Franken in the Senate before Norm Coleman can pursue his case through the federal courts.

Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, acknowledges that a federal challenge to November’s elections could take “years” to resolve. But he’s adamant that Coleman deserves that chance — even if it means Minnesota is short a senator for the duration. [...]

Cornyn believes that Minnesota can’t certify Franken the winner if Coleman seeks review from the U.S. Supreme Court or files a new federal case. And Ben Ginsberg, a Coleman attorney and a central player on the Republican side in the 2000 Florida recount, says it’s “an open question” whether a federal court challenge puts a pause on the certification process.

For some reason I'm reminded of a true story: My wife and I were lost in Brooklyn, looking to meet up with some friends. We were also drunk out of our minds. Anyway, we had been walking for about two miles, which is a long way when you're drunk and it's boiling hot in August. My wife asks me, "What was that march in WWII where everybody died?"

"The Bataan Death March," I said.

"Yeah, that one. If they had just called it a fun march, maybe it wouldn't be so bad."

Since we were drunk, this struck us as hilarious. For the next half-hour we kept riffing on it. "Did you hear, man, we're on a death march!" "No, no, it's a fun march." "Oh, a fun march? Well that's okay then."

Anyway, the latest update from the Minnesota Fun March:

A three-judge state panel convened to review an election contest brought by former Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman (R) in his race against entertainer Al Franken (D) has dealt the Republican a serious setback in its ruling this afternoon.

The panel will allow the consideration of only 400 wrongly rejected absentee ballots to be reviewed and possibly counted -- making it very difficult for Coleman to make up the 225-vote deficit he currently carries. (Here's the full ruling.)

"We feel pretty good about where we stand," said Marc Elias, a lawyer for Franken's campaign, on a conference call conducted moments ago. "This court has spoken clearly about the legal standards are" for the inclusion of ballots.

Ben Ginsberg, the lead attorney for Coleman, referred to the ruling as an "April Fools Day" judgment (one day early) and stated that the decision "gives us no choice but to appeal that order to Minnesota Supreme Court." Ginsberg offered no thought about whether or not an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court would be considered.

Ginsberg said it would be a "long shot" for Coleman to make up the necessary ground on Franken with just 400 ballots being included.

The ballots will be opened, sorted and potentially counted by the Minnesota Secretary of State on April 7. It remains unclear how many of the 400 votes will actually be counted. It's also unknown whether Coleman will appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court, which is within his rights.

-edit-

Oh, come on, you've got to be kidding: Another congressional race turns into an unexpected nail-biter. To quote that great poet Samuel L. Jackson, "I have had it with these :daisy: snakes on this :daisy: plane!"

The race in the 20th Congressional district between Republican Jim Tedisco and Democrat Scott Murphy is too close to call. With 100 percent precincts reporting, Murphy leads Tedisco by only 59 votes, 77,344 to 77,285. With nearly 6,000 absentee ballots that will essentially decide the race as of Monday, the election will not be decided at least until April 13.

Well, that didn't take long:

National Republicans are warning prospective donors that Democrats are trying to “pull a Franken” and “steal” Tuesday's special election in upstate New York.

Republicans made the charges in a fundraising e-mail sent out early Wednesday morning after a too-close-to-call finish in the New York House race between Democrat Scott Murphy and Republican Jim Tedisco. [...]

“Democrats have almost succeeded in stealing the election in Minnesota and seating Al Franken,” wrote Guy Harrison, the National Republican Congressional Committee's executive director. “We cannot allow them to manipulate electoral results to seat another tax-troubled liberal.”

The e-mail indicates Republicans are gearing up for a legal fight over the election results, and suggests the party will pursue a more aggressive legal battle than in Minnesota.

Wouldn't it be cool if we could have years-long legal battles over every seat in congress? This is developing into a trend ....